location with this information. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. wireless facilities like bryson typically include the use of backup batteries to provide power to the facility in the event of power failure. these types of batteries present safety hazards that make the facilities undesirable and in controllable with a hospital setting. including in your packet is the data sheet for the kind of batteries used at these sites in san francisco. fire and explosion hazard data. unusual fire hazards. hydrogen and oxygen gases are produced during normal battery operation. this supports combustion.

these gases into the air through the vent. to avoid a chance of fire or explosion, keep sources of ignition away from the batteries. also are operating instructions , from another manufacturer of backup batteries. these contain similar safety warnings that continued does continue safety warnings. this is not the type of equipment that we desire in our neighborhood. please vote to deny the permit for this location this week. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i would like to talk briefly about one fundamental fact about all telephone networks during times of natural disasters and

others emergencies. let me give a simple example. if everyone in san francisco with a traditional landline phone picked up the receiver at the same time to make a call, the network would be overloaded and there would not be enough dialtone to get around. that is the simple fact about any type of network. tele-communications engineers are well aware of this fact and have an number of tools at their disposal to deal with situations like this. for example, with this type of behavior to play takes place, the telephone networks have built in a system of prioritized dial tone for critical emergency service personnel. that means certain people have a crucial role to play during such emergencies will get a dial tone when other people may not. it should be pointed out that this is also a system that is heavily abused by others who can

pay for the privilege. for example, they feel entitled to travel by private jets instead of commercial airlines and they believe they should have access to apartheid style town when the rest of us are not. please keep this in mind when companies come to save these facilities are needed. please vote to deny for rise in the equipment for this location. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. good afternoon. i am living on fifth avenue for almost 36 years.

these areas are all residential. my family, kids. the only hospital has these buildings. the others are all residential. [speaking foreign language. >> i would just reiterate that she is against this. she has a family that lives in the neighborhood. the kaiser hospital is the only in the neighborhood. the rest are residential. when you use the land line and the verizon cell phone, 911 has been very responsive in the

past. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. for 32 years now, i have lived in the richmond district these and 10 that are not necessary for this neighborhood to provide service during a natural disaster or other emergency. federal law would like to give priority to 911 calls. federal law requires that even a phone without a service provider must be allowed to connect to any side if 911 is called. this also over rights and emergency. according to the facility plan from the planning department,

there are over 750 and 10 at in the city. over 86 are in the richmond district and that is from the large cell companies. in the city of only 46 by 7 square miles, that averages 60 installations every square miles. i can dial 911 any time regardless of the installation. this extensive network is more than sufficient to handle 911 calls and what they proposed are not needed to provide emergency communication. please vote to deny verizon a permit for this location. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

the main issue is whether verizon can prove the necessity of these antennas for this location. they have refused to provide any details magic of their testing. for example, they have not given the average call failures. -- they have refused to provide any detailed net tricks of their testing. -- metrics of their testing. verizon will not disclose the basic statistical context in which i can understand the information. what caused these calls to fail,

how many were because it was not adequately charged, how many were dropped to make way for 911 calls? how many failed because of poor network management that had nothing to do with availability? bryson has provided none of disinformation. -- verizon has provided none of this information. >> i am the president of san francisco tomorrow. we support the neighbors in their appeal. we fully support this argument and it is highly appropriate that you provide more specific direction to the planning department as to when

additional service is or is not required. >> good afternoon, supervisors. built this is completely lacking any meaningful data or a simple definition of terms. the design engineer report includes graphs purporting to show the pending capacity problems at the three closest sites. let's take a look at the st. mary's hospital. this is an implication that this is of greater importance. there are the words st. mary's

hospital site and there is no clarity as to what units are being provided. presumably, the arguments the time because the words 100% capacity appear at the top. along the access, the words mb usage with no accompanying key. what does this mean? the engineering report might as well be signed by the reverend of oakland because they provide no actual hard numbers to back up this. they cannot prove that they have a capacity problem in any of their sites. they use cdma technology.

in many cases, there are many more sites. verizon has not told you that. please vote to deny. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a 15-year resident of the richmond district. i am a nine-year customer of verizon and i have never had a dropped call in san francisco. the only time was way out on 280 and the other time deep in the presidio. the main issue is whether verizon can meet the burden of proof that they need to install antennas. when the carriers come seeking the desire to install come the wireless facilities, it is

typical for them to assert that they must continue. the future demands are usually attributed to the demand of an iphone or the anticipated arrival other devices. the information is that it is relevant to making the case. nothing could be further from the truth. verizon must prove that the current network is accommodating future needs in such a way that only a new phase of a education and only at this location can those needs be met. they have not provide any data that they could analyze to make this case. there is no way to independently test or verify the claims. even during large public of fans like the america's cup, party must be given to any calls that are dialed.

a truly well managed network can anticipate one off of chance like this -- one off events like this. please vote to deny them a permit for this location. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with the russian hill community association. the planning department identifies the zoning adjacent as an rm1, makes the low density neighborhood. under the wireless telecommunications services facilities guidelines, these are

preference seven or at favorite locations which is the lowest of the seven level preferences listed, for good reason. the city disfavors the facility in a residential neighborhood. simply put, this is an industrial commercial use that is incompatible with these uses. the only reason they are in residential neighborhoods are identified as a preference one because of loopholes. they succeeded in converting the preference one category from public, structures like water towers, bridges, smokestacks, five polls, to a category of publicly used structures which includes libraries, hospitals, and health centers.

this bit of subterfuge cannot hide the fact that verizon's wireless facility is an industrial commercial use and therefore is incompatible with the surrounding residential community. please vote to deny verizon a permit for this location. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i would like to thank the supervisors for this opportunity to make clear the committee's opposition to this proposal and to make clear our reasons why. i have a retail space two blocks from here. i lived in this neighborhood for many years. they are fundamentally less reliable than wire networks. that will be the case no matter how many a particular carrier installs around san francisco.

wireless networks use radio frequency radiation to transmit and receive their signals. they can be blocked by buildings, for example, depending upon the materials of which these buildings are constructed. you can use one inside your apartment, someone else in a different building might not be able to. radius signals can be bought by trees and other objects and this is subject to atmosphere conditions. the coverage map of the area provides the following disclaimer. even within a coverage area, there are many factors including customer equipment, terrain, proximity to where inside buildings, foliage, or whether that might affect coverage. marketing campaigns designed to persuade customers to abandon landlines and a fantasy in a

world in which there is a perfect seamless service. please vote to deny this application. >> can we get a projection? if you start speaking -- >> ok. i would like you to see that this is an example of what can happen.

there are volatile under certain conditions and can release hydrogen acid and acid mist. these are from the battery manuals. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is jacqueline lurch. i am a life-long sand francisco resident. i do not think the cell towers would be a good idea, and i wanted my voice to be heard. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is family -- emily lee. we do not have the time and resources to keep putting this off. large companies like verizon have more expertise with this and should have been more

responsible when they applied for this permit. please vote for verizon based on the merits of what we have argued today. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is matthew yang. i oppose the installation. this is not the case of "not in my backyard" the health effect caused by rf emission. it is about verizon's failure to prove this is compatible with the neighborhood. on the surface, it appears to have met the requirements of the planning code. on closer inspection, the information is speculative. they use terms such as good, marginal, and bad, rather than actual data to prove a problem with coverage exists. as our field test has been

shown a, the area has good coverage, so where is the need? exhibit a shows most of the blocked calls occur around the existing beacon site. this is contradictory to verizon's own engineering report, which says that customers attempting to make calls to a site beyond its capacity are unable to access the network. why is it the majority of dropped calls occur around the beacon site, while there are few dropped calls near the st. mary's site, which will supposedly be at capacity in december of this year? this reinforces the fact that verizon's claims are speculative, and new antennas may not solve the so-called capacity problems. ultimately, the burden of proof lies with horizon. although they have provided colorful maps and materials, they do not approve the proposed income as are necessary. for these reasons, i ask you

please vote to deny verizon the conditional use permit for the installation of antennas at this site. thank you. president chiu: let me ask if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant. please step up. >> my name is mark leech. i am a resident of san francisco. i also used to work for aaa. using an iphone, we would often lose calls and data, but basically because the area could not handle the volume. we live in san francisco. our economy is dependent on tourism and tourism growth. 2013, we are going to have america's cup in the middle of

san francisco. people are going to be using geary boulevard to transfers the street to see the america's cup. if a tourist wants to -- president chiu: you are speaking against cu, right? >> right. president chiu: there will be time for you to speak later, but this is for members of the public who are speaking against the verizon decision. are there other members of the public who wish to speak? >> my name is gene. i would like to point to one thing, a reason why verizon would seek permission to build a cell site which is not needed in a given location. wireless carriers like verizon typically look for potential cell locations.

there are firms that specialize in doing this work for them. in this case, for example, a consulting firm called "on air" is working for horizon. countries like this have a vested interest in locating as many cell sites as possible for their clients, since each represents a new source of revenue for their business. that is regardless of the actual current needs and customer base. because wireless carriers like verizon have enormous financial resources at their disposal, they are more than able to afford the relatively modest cost involved with building out

a typical cell site, even if the cell site is not needed. the board does not need the support to approve a permit when a current need is not demonstrated by the wireless carrier. the ninth circuit court of appeals decision in 2005 affirmed the authority of this board to say no to permits for a similar antenna. president chiu: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellants? do you wish to speak on behalf

of the appellants? please step up. >> i support the construction of additional small antennas on geary street. president chiu: i think you are on the other side. i think you are supporting verizon. if you could just wait for a little bit, and i will again ask if there are members of the public who wish to support the appellant. please step up. >> i live in visitation valley for almost 30 years. i highly support the neighborhood in richmond. that is not inappropriate relationship for verizon to put an antenna there. i would really appreciate it if

you could vote no to putting the antenna of there. that is not an appropriate location. even though there is high technology and spending, that is not appropriate. thank you. president chiu: thank you. and the other members of the public wish to speak in support of the appellants? do you need translation? if you would like to translate for her, you are free to do that. if she would like to speak in chinese, you can translate after she speaks.

>> [speaking chinese] president chiu: please speak into the microphone. >> her name is yang, and she is against the antennas installation. she lives in the neighborhood. president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> i am against antennas on kaiser hospital. please vote no. president chiu: thank you. in the other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? seeing none, why don't we go to the presentation by the planning department? >> my name is amory rogers. with me is the project planner on a conditional use

authorization. this appeal is for the planning commission decision for wireless telecommunications on carry boulevard. a presentation will cover four topics. first, project description. second, this site as a preference one location. third, a little bit about the city process that established our preference siting criteria. fourth, the commission findings as to why they approved this cu and found this necessary, desirable, and compatible with the neighborhood. the conditional use authorization required under planning code section 303 and 209.6 require a conditional use permits for this project. the project includes nine panel antennas located on the northeast and south side of the

existing mechanical penthouse. the antennas will be flush mounted, extending no higher than the existing penthouse. they will be screened from view and painted to match. the equipment will be set back 30 feet from the roof edge, so as to be minimally visible from the street. supervisor mar: it is the building that is along sixth avenue, closer to the residential area, not the building closer to the geary commercial district? it is across the street from the police station? >> that is correct. we can put a -- put an image of the building on the overhead. as a reference, the city has five preferred location types as well as limited and disfavored pipes. this type is called a publicly